linux-kernel - Re: problems with latest smbfs changes on 2.4.34 and security backports

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ti59r21s1r87qtd854d6keiakr34donbcq@4ax.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:49:50 +1100
From:	Grant Coady <grant_lkml@...o.com.au>
To:	Santiago Garcia Mantinan <manty@...ian.org>
Cc:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
	Santiago Garcia Mantinan <manty@...ian.org>,
	Grant Coady <gcoady.lk@...il.com>,
	dann frazier <dannf@...nf.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	debian-kernel@...ts.debian.org
Subject: Re: problems with latest smbfs changes on 2.4.34 and security backports

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:36:30 +0100, Santiago Garcia Mantinan <manty@...ian.org> wrote:

>> > As you can see I now can see the symbolic links perfectly and they work as
>> > expected.
>> > 
>> > In fact, this patch is working so well that it poses a security risk, as now
>> > the devices on my /mnt/dev directory are not only seen as devices (like they
>> > were seen on 2.4.33) but they also work (which didn't happen on 2.4.33).
>> 
>> Why do you consider this a security problem ? Is any user able to create a
>> device entry with enough permissions ? As a general rule of thumb, networked
>> file systems should be mounted with the "nodev" option.
>
>You are completely right on that, it is just that I thought those devices
>didn't work on 2.4.33, but I just retested again and they work ok, only that
>they were not working to me on the PC I tested the other day and it was
>because of a nodev option :-) just that.
>
>So... I have finised with my tests, I have tested an x86 client on which it
>worked ok, just like on the PowerPC client, both working perfectly just like
>they used to do on 2.4.33.
>
>> Grant, just to be sure, are you really certain that you tried the fixed kernel ?
>> It is possible that you booted a wrong kernel during one of your tests. I'm
>> intrigued by the fact that it changed nothing for you and that it fixed the
>> problem for Santiago.
>
>Maybe he had also applied some of the earlier patches you had sent and that
>I did not apply to mine?
>
>Just to clear things up a bit, I'm sure I'm with the 2.4.34 kernel and...
>I'm running a pristine kernel with just this latest patch applied, the one
>that changes S_IFREG for (fattr->f_mode & S_IFMT).

Same kernel + patch here for latest results posting :)  We seem to get 
similar results now -- though I query the file execute bits coming up.

Grant.
>
>Regards...

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/